Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kensington and Chelsea TMO

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jpmaytum's comments provide just enough reasonable doubt about deleting this article so at this time I'm going with "when in doubt, don't delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington and Chelsea TMO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete This pages is not notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it's hard to show notability when you write such a small stub and I'm intending to add more content which should demonstrate this organisations notability as a public-sector housing organisation (largest TMO in UK, only full-borough TMO, only TMO that is also an ALMO). However it's often hard to find the time to do justice to pages - that's why I hoped the stub indicator would indicate there is work to follow.

hope this is helpful

Jpmaytum (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From searching Google News, Books and Scholar I found only one piece of significant coverage in what appears to be a reliable, independent source, namely pp. 76–77 of this pamphlet by Demos (UK think tank). Not enough on its own to meet WP:GNG, but i may change my !vote if someone uncovers one or two more pieces of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It is really hard to source good information about social housing as it is not widely covered in mainstream media and it is not a great area of academic research, although arguably it is an important area of public policy. However I've managed to find a reference to the organisation as a case study in a national newspaper. There are also a number of references in the leading trade journal Inside Housing (which I haven't added). Although I'm sure it's not covered by Wikipedia notability guidelines, it is worth pointing out that the leader of this organisation was honoured by the Queen for the work this organisation does, so is notable in UK public adminstration terms. Again - any comments welcome Jpmaytum (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.